Language is the primary tool through which we express ourselves – our emotions, our thoughts, our interpretations of reality. Yet the language available to us influences what we can express and, more fundamentally, what we can think.
For example, the level of moral consideration granted to nonhuman animals is typically determined by the assumed strength of their subjective experience – that is, their assumed degree of sentience. However, those labelled “food animals” are impulsively deemed less subjectively aware, less able to experience pain, and less morally significant. Researchers conclude that this labeling influences what we think, with the finding holding true regardless of whether or not the research participants consume the species in question.
In this way, language contains ideology. The labeling of the butchered flesh of a pig as “pork” or that of a cow as “beef” reduces pigs and cows to “meat” – a consumable product – and in turn conditions us to overlook their moral value. In fact, our language conditions us to overlook them entirely – the nonhuman victims of our consumer choices become “absent referents,” to use Carol J. Adams’ term. Resultantly, our language promotes the unthinking objectification of nonhuman bodies.
In capitalist societies the objectification of nonhuman bodies is commonplace, therefore we accept the labeling of cows as “live-stock.” Yet, by doing so, we are overlooking the individuality of cows – their personalities, preferences, relationships, their sentience – and as a result we contribute to the acceptance of their objectification as commercial products in the first place.
The conventional terms available in a particular society both reflect and perpetuate the conventional views of said society. And the conventional view in Western society is that of “anthropocentrism” – or, “speciesism” – which perceives humanity to be separate and superior to other animals. Why else would being called an “animal” be offensive? A “cow,” a “pig,” a “dog,” a “sheep,” a “snake,” and so on? This separation and perceived elevation of humans provides the supposed justification of our ruthless exploitation of nonhuman bodies and their environments. Even ostensibly innocuous terms such as “wildlife” reduce nonhuman complexity to a homogenous, other-than-human mass.
To view reality through the conceptual lens of anthropocentrism is to be blind to the immeasurable complexity of the world, the unfathomable individuality of other-than-human subjective experiences, and ultimately to be deluded by our own arrogance and ignorance.
Existing vegans will know through experience that rejecting nonhuman animal exploitation has a significant impact on the way we understand and speak about other animals and the “products” made from them. “Meat,” “leather,” and “fur” become the severed flesh and skins of abused captives; “dairy” becomes stolen nourishment denied to a baby; “eggs” the result of unrelenting exploitation of female anatomy; “bullfighting” and “horseracing” are public displays of domination and sadistic voyeurism; “zoos” and “aquariums” are prisons; “research” is torture. Instead of “livestock,” “wildlife,” “pests,” or “rodents,” nonhuman animals become fellow earthlings, kin, companions, and awe-inspiring co-inhabitants with an equal right to the land, life, and autonomy.
For nonvegans, these ways of understanding “animal products” and the beings from which they are made might seem nonsensical, or even offensive. I encourage the reader to ask themselves why, and to think critically about the ways the language we speak conditions us to accept certain thoughts, opinions, and behaviors as normal. Becoming aware of the ideology contained within our language can only expand our awareness, it can only remove blinkers and thus broaden our perspectives beyond the conventional perspective pushed upon us. By refusing to overlook the individuality of other animals, we can appreciate more fully the wondrous complexity of all life on this planet and our humble position within it.
To conclude, a note to vegan advocates: let us challenge anthropocentrism and speciesism wherever they manifest – including in our own language – and never underestimate the power of words.
